Israel and the Right

When President Obama said last week that Israel should return to its pre-1967 borders, Benjamin Netanyahu declared “Israel will not return to the indefensible boundaries of 1967.” Israel’s Prime Minister was clearly not pleased.

But perhaps even more perturbed was the American Right, with the potential 2012 Republican presidential candidates offering the following reactions: Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich called Obama’s Israeli-Palestinian policy a “disaster.” Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney said “President Obama has thrown Israel under the bus.” Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann said that America would be “cursed” by God if it “rejected” Israel. A critical Sarah Palin even advised Obama to read the Old Testament.

Congressman Ron Paul was also critical of Obama’s Israel policy, but from a different perspective: “While President Obama’s demand that Israel make hard concessions in her border conflicts may very well be in her long-term interest, only Israel can make that determination on her own, without pressure from the United States or coercion by the United Nations. Unlike this President, I do not believe it is our place to dictate how Israel runs her affairs.”

Paul added, “We should respect Israel’s sovereignty and not try to dictate her policy from Washington.”

This is not the first time Paul has taken this position.

When Israel attacked a nuclear reactor in Iraq in 1981 almost the entire US Congress voted to condemn the act, but Congressman Paul was one of the few Republicans who stood up and said Israel should not have to answer to America for how she defends herself. Remember, this was the Republican Party of Ronald Reagan that had condemned Israel, a coalition that included the most hawkish anti-Communists and the most fervent Christian conservatives.

Republicans condemned Israel’s actions in 1981 for two reasons: 1. The Reagan administration was making an ally of Saddam Hussein. 2. The Republican Party had not yet conflated Israel’s and America’s interests as identical.

Yesterday’s Cold Warriors might have wanted to defeat Communism and no doubt considered Israel an ally, but by and large their hawkishness reflected a desire to put America first. Yesterday’s religious Right was also thoroughly anti-Communist and they also considered Israel an ally—but their politics were primarily born of the belief that America was no longer putting God first.

In a speech before the Heritage Foundation in 1988, conservative author Russell Kirk said “Not seldom has it seemed as if some eminent Neoconservatives mistook Tel Aviv for the capital of the United States.” Kirk was describing the attitude of an increasingly influential part of the GOP, the neoconservatives, who would end up defining American foreign policy during the George W. Bush administration.

For most traditional conservatives of Reagan’s era, support for Israel did not necessarily mean unconditional support for absolutely everything Israel did. This is generally not true of the neoconservatives. If the US condemned Israel for attacking Iraq in 1981, it was not a shock that by the time the neoconservative Bush administration came to power two decades later America and Israel would more often begin to share the same enemies. There was Iraq, of course, and today while Ron Paul insists that Israel should do whatever it likes concerning the threat posed by Iran—the neoconservatives push for a US war with Iran. Is yet another Middle Eastern war in the US’s best interest? Whose interests are the neoconservatives putting first—America or Israel’s? Many in Reagan’s Republican Party might have asked this question. Few in Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich’s GOP would even dare to.

The Christian Coalition exemplified the power of the Religious Right in the 1980’s and 90’s and its founder Pat Robertson was regularly accused of being an anti-Semite throughout this period. Prominent neoconservative Norman Podhoretz wrote in 1995 “The conclusion is thus inescapable that Robertson, whether knowingly or unknowingly, has subscribed to and purveyed ideas that have an old and well-established anti-Semitic pedigree.” To read Robertson’s writings, Mr. Podhoretz was not being unreasonable in his criticism.

But if a Religious Right leader like Robertson might have been an anti-Semite during the Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton years—in 2008 he would endorse socially liberal Rudy Giuliani for president primarily because the televangelist thought the former New York City mayor was a “strong supporter” of Israel. In supporting a pro-choice and pro-gay-marriage candidate, was the supposedly conservative Christian Robertson putting God, America or Israel first? Giuliani was also the top 2008 choice of many of the neoconservatives—including former Robertson critic Norman Podhoretz—and for the same reasons as the televangelist. To the degree that some on the Religious Right of the Reagan era might have been anti-Semitic is deplorable. But so are the Christian coalitions of today who might follow Michelle Bachmann and Sarah Palin in the other extreme direction by allowing their latest interpretations of the Bible to dictate US foreign policy.

“Israel is our close friend,” says Congressman Paul in response to Obama’s recent comments on the Jewish state, as he simultaneously wonders why America should even have a dominant role in dictating that nation’s policies. Whether in 1981 or 2011, Ron Paul’s position on this controversial issue remains reasonable, consistent and traditionally conservative—while that of his party continues to fluctuate with the ideological and theological fashions of the day.

MORE FROM THIS AUTHOR

Hide 33 comments

33 Responses to Israel and the Right

It only stands to reason that Ron Paul would be of the same opinion today in regard to Israel’s foreign relations issues as he was in 1981. He is the most consistent member of congress, if not the most consistent person in politics today. When Ron Paul says something, you can bet that there will be NO flip-flopping or misunderstanding about what he actually said. This is why all of the other candidates running for the Republican nomination will fail……the people want someome who will do what he says, someone like Ron Paul.

It is worthwhile to step back on occasion and consider how the Paul Presidency fits into the big picture of how Israel and Western civilization.

Access to Christian holy sites will be very likely better preserved under the Jewish state then any alternative. There are some Israeli Christian-haters, but they are challenged by their co-ethnics, and the growing number of Israeli Christians can hopefully serve to check this problem.

The elusive story of the first decades of Christianity, and the writing of the New Testament, must be investigated in Israel’s tombs, caves, and sands. Many Israeli scholars have been filling in the gaps in the story. This is the golden age of studies of this period, and Israelis are making critical contributions.

Israel, for all it’s flaws vis-a-vis it’s Zionist will-to-power and treatment of the native Arabs, has a robust culture of free speech, educational and artistic pursuits, scientific inquiry, entrepreneurial energy, and quite Western democratic traditions. If you were Arab, would you rather be a citizen of Israel, and enjoy these privileges, or have to labor mightily, possibly risking prison or worse, for the possibility of future freedoms in an Arab state?

Israel is a part of the West, however problematic it’s origins, and treatment of the restive Arabs of Palestine. Ron Paul as President can be a better friend to Israel than the rest of the GOP candidates, by telling the unvarnished truth about it’s options and obligations, and by rejecting neoconservative, fundamentalist, and leftist fantasies and grudges. Friends don’t let friends drive drunk, and President Paul would neither enable Likudnik or settler excess, nor meddle with Israel’s moves to preserve itself in a dangerous neighborhood of jihadists and understandably bitter Palestinians.

It is a welcome trend to have more and more Jews joining the Ron Paul movement!

I strongly suggest that Palin take her own advice by thoroughly reading the New Testament.

Jesus explicitly stated during his ministry that the apostate nation of Israel of his day had been collectively disinherited by God and that the Kingdom of God would now find its long-term fulfillment in the Christian Church he was establishing (Matthew 21:33-45), an institution which was originally comprised of remaining devout Jews from all over the world (Acts 2:36-41) but which included believing Gentiles soon after (Acts 10, 11:1-18). God brought merciless judgment upon that wayward nation of Israel a generation later in 70 AD via the Roman Empire as recorded by the historian Josephus, providentially declaring an end to the Old Covenant with the irrevocable destruction of the Second Temple.

The Christian Church is now God’s chosen people and the rightful inheritors of God’s promises to the Patriarchs, not the modern nation-state of Israel or the current religious Jews, who are the ideological descendants of the unbelieving Pharisees of Jesus’ day. The Gospels, Acts, Romans, Hebrews, etc. of the New Testament demonstrate or elaborate upon the historical transition from a single people/nation chosen by God to a worldwide enterprise of individuals chosen by God out of all nations, one which was prophecied of even in Old Testament times. Compare the description of the nation of Israel when it was first established under the Old Covenant in Exodus 19:5-6 with the description of the Christian Church under the New Covenant in 1 Peter 2:9-10.

The Bible teaches that Christians are not supposed to persecute by any means the remaining religious Jews or Israeli citizens (many of which are atheists), but neither are Christians supposed to treat the modern nation-state of Israel like it is still God’s chosen nation and unconditionally support all of its actions, especially those actions which clearly violate God’s moral precepts.

While I admire Congressman Paul, he did play it safe here. It is one thing to say that Israel needs to take steps it take all measures necessary to defend itself. But, he did not address whether ruling over several million Palestinians without a vote adds or subtract from the security. Does expanding settlements add or subtract? He also does not talk about the “special relationship” between the U.S. and Israel, and whether that adds to American security.

I cannot understand how the Christian religious right justify supporting Israel a country that killed many and caused thousands of Palestinian Christian to flee their ancestral homes. Before Israel was founded in 1948 Palestinian Christian was over 35% of the population, today due to Israeli policies they are less than 3%. If it’s not for these original Christians they would be no Christianity today in world.

I don’t want American foreign policy predicated on either the Old or the New Testament. I can’t believe that we are even having this discussion as a nation.

American interests must come first. Sometimes those will line up nicely with Israel’s interests, and sometimes they won’t. The Israel Lobby wields too much power in DC, but that’s our fault, not the fault of the Israeli’s. They are acting in their own best interest. Shame on us for not recognizing that.

Leave the region alone and lets worry about matters closer to home. The oil will get here somehow, I promise.

Thoughts about god are church matters, religious maters – not matters of state.

People founded America to escape the state imposition of ideas about one god or another, by one church or another. The separation of church and state is one of the bedrock ideals of the great American experiment.

Saying that the physical land of Palestine belongs to the Jews “because god said so” is anathema to our founding principles. The Bible belongs in our churches, not in our foreign policy – period.

It is ironic that those in our country that yell “separation church and state” the loudest – also seek to use the Bible as justification for our government backing of Israel’s temporal stealing of more and more Palestinian land.

It should be pointed out that Ron Paul has been a consistent opponent of aid to Israel – or anyone else. Bribery and bombing are the instruments used by the US global warlords to dictate to other countries. It’s the US version of “plomo o plata”. Cut Israel off and it can do as its rulers please – and suffer the consequences without us.

Sarah Palin is perhaps the biggest dolt to ever run for President (assuming she does, which I do, given her ego, which eclipses Newt and Obama combined and squared). The fact that Pat Buchanan was at least initially solicitous of this ditzy, disloyal drama queen stands to his shame, unless he’s subsequently repudiated that position (I have not seen it).

As far as basing American foreign policy on any “testaments”, JHC people–it’s 2011. Grow up already. Our country can’t bear your foolishness. Why not base our foreign policy on chicken entrails, or the position of the stars? The more I hear such nonsense, the more I am convinced that the human condition is hopeless, as we grasp at any silly straw we can find in this world.

Israel today is pretty frightening, Personally I believe that militant Zionism is just as bad as militanat Islam, but no one seems to say anything about this for fear of being labeled antisemitic. I don’t hate anyone, and when you step away from all the long standing religious fervor you realize that one is just as horrific as another, Christianity included. Lets keep religion out of government and government out of religion.

The idiot ass kissers in congress who bobed up and down for that apeman/bronze aged thug Bibi should be ashamed of themself! Have they no shame? My instincts tell me these ego-maniacs hated themselves for the obsene behavior!

I’d imagine you could poll individuals in the GOP and find a wide range of reasons why they support Israel. Some of the main themes might be that it’s the only democratic nation in the area, others might say that once we form a friendship with someone it’s wrong to drop it unilaterally, others might say that it’s because there’s a very useful level of cooperation between our two nations in the area of what’s known as HUMINT; or Human Intelligence. And they do buy lots of stuff from us.

Now, I’m not going to offer an opinion one way or the other on whether those reasons are either good OR correct.

I WILL however point out that as humans we all have a strong contrarian streak, and I wonder sometimes…
Is it just me, or has the GOP support for Israel increased in an inversely proportional manner to the Democrat support of Israel’s enemies?

Interestingly enough, I think it could be argued that the middle east might have a very different set of circumstances had Israel dealt with her enemies as aggressively as she has wanted to. This includes the Iranian nuclear situation. I have no trouble whatsoever believing that Iran want nuclear power for electrical generation, so that she can preserve her petroleum supplies for sale on the international market. Still… I don’t believe for a second that power plants are ALL Iran is thinking about. At the moment she only those two ex-soviet nukes she bought in 1991/1992. I am sure she’d like more.

I think the bottom line for me in regards to Israel is this:

Whether this was intentional or not, we have put a leash on Israel and interfered in her foreign policy decisions, which Israel allowed us to do because she believed having us as a friend was a good idea.

When you put a leash on a wolf in the hopes that you can turn it into a dog, you take on a responsibility to treat that animal right.

If you can’t do that, you have an obligation to take the leash off and let the wolf BE a wolf and make it’s own way.

What ever happened to individual national sovereignty? Israel is a sovereign nation. Let her do what she feels is necessary to protect her interests as she perceives them. Neither Israel nor America has the right to dictate to each other as to what constitutes their national interests. As Godfather Cordeleone said to Virgil Tattaglia “I wish you luck in your newest venture—so long as our interests don’t conflict”.

Everything all went to hell and a handbox when George senior left. He ended aid to Israel because of settlements and The Reagan ended Military aid because of cluster Bombs Lately we have had wimps in the White House when it comes to this issue. Scowcroft said Sharon the Man from Quibya ate George’s lunch it was pathetic and only did Bush finally do something right and order no Iran attack FOR NOTHING.
People– read Robert Baer ‘s “Ex CIA who was in Country” Book– Sleeping with the Enemy– it really talks about Iran and how it’s becoming a big player and why we should rethink some things.
Last Jim Webb for President running as a Independent. a Decorated Veteran I am sure he handle Netanyahu and get peace and no stupid wars.

Ron Paul, by defining Israel as a friend, just reveals, like all the other candidates, how timid and intimated by AIPAC he is in the face of 2012. To paraphrase an old British statement: America has no friends; America just has interests. And if anyone really believes that our unquestioned support of Israel has advanced American interests that person is delusional. No, like his son Ron talks the talk but does ot walk the walk.

The main Zionist claim is that they have a supreme right to some of Palestinian territory because they lived there thousands of years ago. Let’s examine the core and real nature of this claim.
Firstly, this claim is mistaken and selfish in its core concept because Zionists fail to recognize that history is a continuum and that there were other people living in majority in Palestine before the Jews and also after the Jews. Zionists simply cut history at a convenient point for them and claim ancestral ties to the land as of that convenient point.

Secondly, whatever the claim, it is beyond absurd to try to shape modern world based on thousands of years old maps. Imagine if the rest of the world would be reshaped by who was on the land thousands of years ago. It would cause horrific wars, countless refugees, and unimaginable human suffering, exactly what is happening in Palestine.

Thirdly and most disturbing, Zionist goal was to establish a Jewish state wherever possible. Palestine may have been a preference, but Palestine was not the only location that Zionists planned as their state in modern times. Another location was Argentina where Jews have been migrating for hundreds of years for the purpose of establishing a state. Also, locations in Europe were on the list and that’s why the Catholic Church was killing/expelling Jews since Roman times (read the history of the Holly Inquisition). Whatever the location, Zionist plan was to simply occupy the people living on the land even if that would mean imposing a regime worst than Nazi Germany’s from which they escaped. And Zionists would just use a different ideological coloring than the one used in Palestine in the attempt to rationalize the occupation.

In conclusion, the main claim on which the Zionist regime is built in Palestine is erroneous, selfish, and a lie. I am categorically against generalizing, and recognize that many Jews are against the crimes the Zionist regime is committing and that many Jews are leading the global resistance to it. They should be proud